Is building a bookshelf with adjustable shelves is "over-engineered" because a single fixed plank would hold books just as well? Who gets to be the arbiter on which requirements are the "real" requirements?
It should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others. This is a matter of (hopefully informed) opinion after all.
Also opinions will change after time, or after analyzing the problem space better.
GP also said that lots of product in the market are over-engineered, so I don't see why my view (that this is an over-engineered doorbell) is controversial at all.
It's controversial because your definition of "over-engineered" is different from most other people's understanding of the term. Most people would take it to mean "using more complex systems than needed to achieve a given outcome", while you are defining it more like "using any system at all to achieve an outcome that I consider unnecessary".
The former definition is somewhat objective in that it can be tested and proven, while the latter definition is entirely subjective and sort of meaningless. I could just as well state that any doorbell is over-engineered since you can just knock.
> GP: The minimum of 5+x^2 is closer to 5.5 than 10
> You: If you were minimizing 3+x^2 you could get an even lower value
> I am not saying every product has to be the absolute minimum, that's an absurdist interpretation of what I mean.
> I am saying that people can call something "overengineered" and "it was the requirement" is not a defence.
Okay, so you're not saying to reject all above-minimum features, but then there seems to be no objective criteria, so who is deciding which ones to reject? Why is it not the customer?
And it's not a does-nothing feature either, it has a meaningful impact on the user.
> Maybe what I mean is: Feature creep does contribute to overengineering. That's not controversial in the engineering community at all.
A requirement from the start, the baseline of the product pitch, is the opposite of feature creep.
You can have any features you want, but people get to call it over-engineering if they say so, and "it's in the requirements" is not a shield against it.
In the sense that people don't have to be right they can call anything over-engineering.
But it helps to have somewhat objective criteria, like whether it was feature creep. And this was not feature creep. And custom sound for something like this is a desirable feature for the average person; you can look at the massive ringtone business in the 00s to prove that.
It is also the right of anyone to call something feature creep, using their own criteria.
> And custom sound for something like this is a desirable feature for the average person; you can look at the massive ringtone business in the 00s to prove that.
And every AI startup should send a monthly Tulip to every user. The Tulip craze of the 1630s proves that.
What a broken analogy. These people were paying small amounts for something they directly enjoyed. And the main reason the business dropped away is because phones made it orders of magnitude easier to do it yourself.
People like to customize sounds. Lots and lots of people.
> It is also the right of anyone to call something feature creep, using their own criteria.
I was listening to your potential argument for "over-engineered", but "feature creep" is pretty objective. This was not feature creep. OP wanted a specific feature from the start and even went out of their way to exclude lots of features.
Since you brought up tulips, you should know very well they were not paying small amounts and the problems all came from people that were not directly enjoying them. Your analogy between them and ringtone enjoyers is hopelessly broken.
> It wasn't me who made such argument.
First off, you did. You said "If it quacks like a duck, doesn’t matter what you call it: it was over engineering." and as a followup you said "Challenge accepted: "Similar functionality" here is the same doorbells that have existed for over a century. Done. :)". You started off actually participating in the discussion about whether the doorbell was over-engineered, and only later started trying to be so abstract and unfalsifiable.
Second off, even if you hadn't written those comments and you had actually made yourself impartial about the doorbell itself, I would still say the same thing to you. Read this again: I was listening to your potential argument for "over-engineered", but "feature creep" is pretty objective. This was not feature creep. OP wanted a specific feature from the start and even went out of their way to exclude lots of features.
My comment there doesn't even say you were calling it over-engineering. It says you were making arguments about it, which you were. You were defending the people calling things over-engineering by bringing up feature creep. So I pointed out feature creep is even weaker and doesn't apply here.
Anyway, I could maybe think you honestly thought the second half of my post didn't apply to you. But your "Tulips?" response to the first half makes it clear you're being disingenuous and dodging. Prove me wrong? But I'm not holding my breath.
> Except in the world of "anything is possible," mirror life would have no food. All biomolecules are chiral.
Many essential biomolecules, nutrients, and amino acides are achiral (e.g. carbon dioxide, water, ammonium, phosphate, sulfate, glycine, and more). Mirror organisms could easily - at least in the realm of plausibility - function as autotrophs to convert sunlight, CO2, etc. into organic sugars, or extract energy from inorganic materials like hydrogen or iron paired with CO2.
L-Glucose already exists, but the problem is that the amount in, e.g. one soda would make your intestines decide to entirely empty themselves. It's been trialed as a colon-cleansing agent for colonoscopy in much smaller doses than say a can of Coke would need, so it's not very useful in a consumer product.
I think hydration breaks can be defensible as long as they are a) conditionally triggered by pre-existing criteria that is b) created by an honest assessment of player welfare independent of economic considerations.
I can't say I think the halftime show is a big deal at all though.
Given how the world is heating up and weather is getting more extreme, I think there has to be space for player welfare. That doesn't mean there aren't options for how to implement these things, but I don't think adding 2x 3-minute hydration break (for instance) transforms football into some unrecognizable bastardized version of itself provided the impetus is health and safety vs. economics.
Talking about resolution is pointless without mentioning screen size and display tech. PPI is better, but doesn't always work well comparing between technologies.
I wrote a novella with epigraphs at the beginning of the chapters. Every epigraph was flagged as AI-generated likely because they were written as curt, clipped statements of fact as if taken from a historical record entry.
This piece seems logical and correct. It also seems entirely AI-generated, but I suppose we've moved into a world where that's just the way content is now.
Yes, I disagree with Pangram on this. It's a very familiar style, so familiar that things that might look like LLM-isms in another context actually give a smooth feeling of fitting the style exactly.
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. You gain nothing from pointing out every post that seems LLM generated. Read it or don't but we don't make the world better by accusing each other of using LLMs. The only things we increase are mistrust and frustration.
There is no "maybe", it is at least largely AI-generated though I'm sure there's a human involved in building the perspective. Run it through any checker you can find, the outcome is without doubt.
I don't think I've made a similar comment elsewhere on Hacker News, reddit, etc., (nor do I plan to make a habit of it) but this one stuck out to me. I know this because I did read it just as I've read previous posts such as these on West Point through the years. This just isn't how things used to be written. It's a little more ambiguous out in the wild on any given site/blog/etc.
> The only things we increase are mistrust and frustration
Mistrust of what? The human voice behind this thought? Yes, I think that mistrust is valid and earned. Nevertheless, I admit the topic seems pertinent and the argument has merit.
You can't reliably prove that something is written by an LLM. There are certainly tells but it could be a personal writing style as well. When reading everything with the suspicion that it might be written by an LLM you are at best finding LLM written content and at worst accuse people of using an LLM when they haven't. Nothing is gained by the accusation.
For me a better way is to find out if I want to read the text or not. Does is there something interesting being said? Is it presented in a way that is at least pleasant enough to read? Is it concise enough? If not I don't read it. Or I skim it.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't like the overuse LLM generated texts. I write my words on my own. Still there is nothing to be gained from distrusting and calling out authors.
I'll admit it cannot be proven to the standard of criminal conviction, but I don't think it's beyond a person's or technology's ability to identify enough "tells" to make a solid conclusion. I can share the things that stick out to me if desired, not that it ultimately constitutes any "proof".
> Still there is nothing to be gained from distrusting and calling out authors
Is there nothing? Nothing at all to be gained by resisting the loss of human-created written thought? It may be a futile effort, the tide may be too great, but I guess I'm not just quite so ready to accept the robotic creation of all written content without even a periodic passing comment. It's good for the soul, but I admit I am probably commenting in a community less likely to appreciate or share such a sentiment.
I don't think you gain anything. The article is written, it will not be rewritten or unwritten because you said it's written by an LLM. I don't see the author not using LLMs in the future if they did use them.
I don't see how you changed anything by pointing out that you assume that this is written by an LLM. What was gained? I don't really see anything. Do you think anyone is dissuaded from reading the article or from using an LLM the next they write something because you could maybe probably tell that it's probably written by an LLM?
I think we all lose more than we gain if we do this. We look at each other with mistrust over whether they used an LLM and we point fingers as soon as we see a sign of "wrongdoing". I see artists and writers frustrated about being accused of using ML tools. And the people who just use LLMs and image generation tools mostly just don't care.
The whole "AI" industry makes everything diffuse. We have to go by vibes if something is made by a human or not and the signs are ever more subtle. We have to be so incredibly careful not to accuse those who are on our side. People who create real human work.
For me the easiest solution for now is to stop accusing. Unless you know for certain that there was not a real human behind it don't point fingers.
> What was gained? I don't really see anything... I don't see how you changed anything...
From an outcome-orientation, no, nothing has changed. But then why write a letter to my representatives or leave public comments on legislation? That seems to do nothing. Why volunteer to remove amur honeysuckle from an American forest? It will just come back in a few years.
You are being outcome-oriented, I'm being value-oriented. I think the effort is worth it for the act alone. I believe I retained some dignity by still caring about the distinction between human-created content and machine created content, and for caring enough to still be able to tell the difference. To you it's worth nothing, fine, to me it's worth something. It's not like I'm blanketing comment sections across this or any other site.
> Unless you know for certain that there was not a real human behind it don't point fingers
I am telling you, definitively, this article is "penned" primarily if not exclusively by an LLM. You want to hang on to possibility that isn't true? That is your decisions to make!
I find it interesting that your reaction to my observation seems to make the observation more of a pejorative than my own comments have. You act like I'm accusing someone of a deplorable or shameful act. I don't feel that strongly, but I am nevertheless sad to see the loss of humanity in our writing.
> But for the love of reading, skip anything new and fashionable until enough decades go by for the influnce of fashion to fade
You could stick to the old stuff, but I think it's also enjoyable to read things written by people that exist in the context I exist in. I don't know what "fashionable" means to you - likely best seller lists of awards? - but I don't find it all that difficult or burdensome (in fact, I find it fun!) to look for newer books dealing with topics and themes I'm interested in. Sure, not all of them are great, but a few are, and many are good. It's a little less fun TO ME to ONLY read consensus lists arounds "top books of the 70s" or whatever.
It's worse than that. Google will get rid of you if you are just fixing bugs. Ergo, the people who are inclined to fix are forced out or forced not to fix.
In my view: the lack of engagement with the historical record. This topic - and the meaning and expected outcomes of the wording for the amendment - were discussed and debated as part of the open record. Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy.
reply